No but it is interesting to read how similar the bill of rights are to the wording in the Magna Carta.
While I would find citing the Magna Carta to be amusing I wouldn't find it all that objectionable.
But people have cited 350 year old English cases here to justify it and when its pointed out that they might not be relevant arguments anymore they just shout "common law" as if that were a logical justification for a bad policy.
English cases that happened in England? Maybe not.
English cases that dealt with colonial states and their people? Way more applicable.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
We should probably keep this within the confines of the modern American justice system or close analogs abroad.
Bringing up cases and case law from hundreds of years ago isn't really relevant.
It's pretty relevant in that our justice system is pretty much the same justice system from 1776 and earlier.
Try to cite a ruling from the 1700s in a court case and see how that goes.
The Magna Carta says hello.
Magna Carta wasn't a court ruling.
The Supreme Court cites pre-Revolutionary English law from time to time, especially when searching for the meaning of the language in the constitution. In the past, when American law was less developed, such citations were even more frequent. For a fairly recent example (1931), Chief Justice Hughes in the case Near v. Minnesota cites Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England to gain some insight into the meaning of the First Amendment and its relationship to prior restraint (here is the text of that ruling). I am sure that someone who has actually studied the law can provide many more examples.
No but it is interesting to read how similar the bill of rights are to the wording in the Magna Carta.
While I would find citing the Magna Carta to be amusing I wouldn't find it all that objectionable.
But people have cited 350 year old English cases here to justify it and when its pointed out that they might not be relevant arguments anymore they just shout "common law" as if that were a logical justification for a bad policy.
English cases that happened in England? Maybe not.
English cases that dealt with colonial states and their people? Way more applicable.
Not necessarily. You'd have a hard time getting a court to accept a ruling from the early 1700s as valid precedent. For good reason.
Citing a court case from 1931 as recent is somewhat odd considering how much of the legal landscape has changed since then.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Well you see, it's a logical justification for a good policy.
The idea of Jury nullification is so old that the main cases discussing it are old too!
It essentially boils down to an appeal to tradition.
Never mind there is no reason for it to be around, it has always been around so it must be around.
They just get to call this common law in legal circles as if that makes it not a fallacy.
You are either deeply confused about how our judicial system works, or you are confusing the debate about what is the case from what ought to be the case. Either way, you are confused.
Well you see, it's a logical justification for a good policy.
The idea of Jury nullification is so old that the main cases discussing it are old too!
It essentially boils down to an appeal to tradition.
Never mind there is no reason for it to be around, it has always been around so it must be around.
They just get to call this common law in legal circles as if that makes it not a fallacy.
You are either deeply confused about how our judicial system works, or you are confusing the debate about what is the case from what ought to be the case. Either way, you are confused.
I'm not arguing whether its legal or not, only whether it should be or not. I thought that this was clear.
No but it is interesting to read how similar the bill of rights are to the wording in the Magna Carta.
While I would find citing the Magna Carta to be amusing I wouldn't find it all that objectionable.
But people have cited 350 year old English cases here to justify it and when its pointed out that they might not be relevant arguments anymore they just shout "common law" as if that were a logical justification for a bad policy.
English cases that happened in England? Maybe not.
English cases that dealt with colonial states and their people? Way more applicable.
Not necessarily. You'd have a hard time getting a court to accept a ruling from the early 1700s as valid precedent. For good reason.
Citing a court case from 1931 as recent is somewhat odd considering how much of the legal landscape has changed since then.
So... in your mind it's only relevant to cite something from maybe 1980 and onward? That seems silly.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Well you see, it's a logical justification for a good policy.
The idea of Jury nullification is so old that the main cases discussing it are old too!
It essentially boils down to an appeal to tradition.
Never mind there is no reason for it to be around, it has always been around so it must be around.
They just get to call this common law in legal circles as if that makes it not a fallacy.
You are either deeply confused about how our judicial system works, or you are confusing the debate about what is the case from what ought to be the case. Either way, you are confused.
I'm not arguing whether its legal or not, only whether it should be or not. I thought that this was clear.
No, it's perfectly unclear. You keep making statements which are demonstrably false, which only serves to muddy things.
saggio on
3DS: 0232-9436-6893
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Well you see, it's a logical justification for a good policy.
The idea of Jury nullification is so old that the main cases discussing it are old too!
It essentially boils down to an appeal to tradition.
Never mind there is no reason for it to be around, it has always been around so it must be around.
They just get to call this common law in legal circles as if that makes it not a fallacy.
You are either deeply confused about how our judicial system works, or you are confusing the debate about what is the case from what ought to be the case. Either way, you are confused.
I'm not arguing whether its legal or not, only whether it should be or not. I thought that this was clear.
Then why are you entertaining this side tangent no whether old English law is relevant to American law? It is a fact that English law -- particularly as it existed prior to the American Revolution -- is the foundation of American law, and that the principles established in the former are the same as those in the latter, except in the cases where they have been specifically altered by statute or constitutional provision. This is why jury nullification absolutely is the law of the land. This is all, of course, entirely separate from the question of whether it should be.
Anyway, I think the right to jury nullification ought to be preserved for two big reasons:
1) There is no practical way to remove it without profoundly compromising the jury's role in the justice system. Opening a jury's verdict to investigation by a judge essentially destroys the jury's power as the sole finder of fact in a case. This powers the state immensely at the expense of the accused.
2) Jury nullification prevents jurors from having to make unconscionable choices. It is terrible to expect that a juror in a farcical teenage sexting trial should be forced to convict the poor teenager under an unjust application of the law. Saying that the juror should just suck it up and do his duty while putting his faith in the appellate court is monstrous.
Well you see, it's a logical justification for a good policy.
The idea of Jury nullification is so old that the main cases discussing it are old too!
It essentially boils down to an appeal to tradition.
Never mind there is no reason for it to be around, it has always been around so it must be around.
They just get to call this common law in legal circles as if that makes it not a fallacy.
You are either deeply confused about how our judicial system works, or you are confusing the debate about what is the case from what ought to be the case. Either way, you are confused.
I'm not arguing whether its legal or not, only whether it should be or not. I thought that this was clear.
Then why are you entertaining this side tangent no whether old English law is relevant to American law? It is a fact that English law -- particularly as it existed prior to the American Revolution -- is the foundation of American law, and that the principles established in the former are the same as those in the latter, except in the cases where they have been specifically altered by statute or constitutional provision. This is why jury nullification absolutely is the law of the land. This is all, of course, entirely separate from the question of whether it should be.
Anyway, I think the right to jury nullification ought to be preserved for two big reasons:
1) There is no practical way to remove it without profoundly compromising the jury's role in the justice system. Opening a jury's verdict to investigation by a judge essentially destroys the jury's power as the sole finder of fact in a case. This powers the state immensely at the expense of the accused.
2) Jury nullification prevents jurors from having to make unconscionable choices. It is terrible to expect that a juror in a farcical teenage sexting trial should be forced to convict the poor teenager under an unjust application of the law. Saying that the juror should just suck it up and do his duty while putting his faith in the appellate court is monstrous.
Boo Fucking Hoo. The supreme court might not like being without its own branch of the armed forces, but that doesn't matter BECAUSE HANDLING THE MILITARY ISN'T IT'S FUCKING JOB. If you don't like the fact that a person you like is guilty, go cry about it in your journal instead of fucking up the justice system.
Telling the jury that it has the right to do whatever it can get away with is basically telling them that they don't have to apply equally and can let a guilty man off because he seems like a nice guy.
For number one, you just showed why jury activism can't be held as precedent, as any alleged case of it is purely speculation based on nothing from the court documents or judicial opinions that comprise a common law system.
agentk13 on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Well you see, it's a logical justification for a good policy.
The idea of Jury nullification is so old that the main cases discussing it are old too!
It essentially boils down to an appeal to tradition.
Never mind there is no reason for it to be around, it has always been around so it must be around.
They just get to call this common law in legal circles as if that makes it not a fallacy.
You are either deeply confused about how our judicial system works, or you are confusing the debate about what is the case from what ought to be the case. Either way, you are confused.
I'm not arguing whether its legal or not, only whether it should be or not. I thought that this was clear.
Then why are you entertaining this side tangent no whether old English law is relevant to American law? It is a fact that English law -- particularly as it existed prior to the American Revolution -- is the foundation of American law, and that the principles established in the former are the same as those in the latter, except in the cases where they have been specifically altered by statute or constitutional provision. This is why jury nullification absolutely is the law of the land. This is all, of course, entirely separate from the question of whether it should be.
Anyway, I think the right to jury nullification ought to be preserved for two big reasons:
1) There is no practical way to remove it without profoundly compromising the jury's role in the justice system. Opening a jury's verdict to investigation by a judge essentially destroys the jury's power as the sole finder of fact in a case. This powers the state immensely at the expense of the accused.
2) Jury nullification prevents jurors from having to make unconscionable choices. It is terrible to expect that a juror in a farcical teenage sexting trial should be forced to convict the poor teenager under an unjust application of the law. Saying that the juror should just suck it up and do his duty while putting his faith in the appellate court is monstrous.
Boo Fucking Hoo. The supreme court might not like being without its own branch of the armed forces, but that doesn't matter BECAUSE HANDLING THE MILITARY ISN'T IT'S FUCKING JOB. If you don't like the fact that a person you like is guilty, go cry about it in your journal instead of fucking up the justice system.
I'm curious how preventing injustice fucks up the justice system.
Telling the jury that it has the right to do whatever it can get away with is basically telling them that they don't have to apply equally and can let a guilty man off because he seems like a nice guy.
Juries don't have to apply the law equally. A given jury will rule on exactly one case, based on the idiosyncrasies of that one case. Since a jury only decides on one case, the question of whether they are applying the law "equally" is meaningless -- their application of the law in a single case cannot be unequal with itself.
Telling the jury that it can judge the law as well as the facts of a case is merely informing the jury of the full scope of its powers.
For number one, you just showed why jury activism can't be held as precedent, as any alleged case of it is purely speculation based on nothing from the court documents or judicial opinions that comprise a common law system.
I am not sure what you mean here, and I suspect you might be confused as to what jury nullification means. The verdict of one jury in one case is not binding on the proceedings of any other case. The exercise of a jury's nullification powers is always unique to the case in question.
Or because laws are not, as intended, one size fits all.
There is this, too. Laws, especially older laws, are not written to be inputs into a law robot. They are written with the powers of judges and juries in mind.
The jury can also judge the skin color of the defendant and victim and general gassiness. Shouldn't we just inform them that they have the right to deliver verdicts however the fuck they want regardless of reality or the law, as you've already stated your belief that ability is the same as right?
The jury can also judge the skin color of the defendant and victim and general gassiness. Shouldn't we just inform them that they have the right to deliver verdicts however the fuck they want regardless of reality or the law, as you've already stated your belief that ability is the same as right?
They sure can. This is a relatively minor outlier in the case. And can be used both in good and bad ways, just like skin color was used in both good and bad ways.
I'd rather keep it than revert to law robot.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
For number one, you just showed why jury activism can't be held as precedent, as any alleged case of it is purely speculation based on nothing from the court documents or judicial opinions that comprise a common law system.
I am not sure what you mean here, and I suspect you might be confused as to what jury nullification means. The verdict of one jury in one case is not binding on the proceedings of any other case. The exercise of a jury's nullification powers is always unique to the case in question.
I'm saying that for something to be precedented in a common law system, it has to at least appear in court documents. Jury nullification has never been directly recorded in court documents, so it is unprecedented.
The jury can also judge the skin color of the defendant and victim and general gassiness. Shouldn't we just inform them that they have the right to deliver verdicts however the fuck they want regardless of reality or the law, as you've already stated your belief that ability is the same as right?
They sure can. This is a relatively minor outlier in the case. And can be used both in good and bad ways, just like skin color was used in both good and bad ways.
I'd rather keep it than revert to law robot.
Then what, exactly, is the rest of the government for? What the fuck is a law if twelve random retards can say it doesn't count, and where the fuck is the principal of equal justice if twelve inbred Alabamians can just say that federal law doesn't apply to white people?
Now, should we instruct juries that they have the right to vote on whatever metric they please?
agentk13 on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
The jury can also judge the skin color of the defendant and victim and general gassiness. Shouldn't we just inform them that they have the right to deliver verdicts however the fuck they want regardless of reality or the law, as you've already stated your belief that ability is the same as right?
They sure can. This is a relatively minor outlier in the case. And can be used both in good and bad ways, just like skin color was used in both good and bad ways.
I'd rather keep it than revert to law robot.
Then what, exactly, is the rest of the government for? What the fuck is a law if twelve random retards can say it doesn't count, and where the fuck is the principal of equal justice if twelve inbred Alabamians can just say that federal law doesn't apply to white people?
The law delineates the grounds by which a prosecutor may bring proceedings against a suspect. That by itself is huge.
Now, should we instruct juries that they have the right to vote on whatever metric they please?
We should tell juries the truth, which is that they have the ultimate authority to determine guilt. Nothing more or less.
Hachface on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
Anyway, one thing people seem to be forgetting is that we have, right here in this thread's OP, an example of jury nullification (or, rather, the threat thereof) against a bad law. Jury nullification doesn't have a perfect record, but then no element of our justice system does.
The jury can also judge the skin color of the defendant and victim and general gassiness. Shouldn't we just inform them that they have the right to deliver verdicts however the fuck they want regardless of reality or the law, as you've already stated your belief that ability is the same as right?
They sure can. This is a relatively minor outlier in the case. And can be used both in good and bad ways, just like skin color was used in both good and bad ways.
I'd rather keep it than revert to law robot.
Then what, exactly, is the rest of the government for? What the fuck is a law if twelve random retards can say it doesn't count, and where the fuck is the principal of equal justice if twelve inbred Alabamians can just say that federal law doesn't apply to white people?
Now, should we instruct juries that they have the right to vote on whatever metric they please?
Those 12 inbred Alabamians could be all that stands between you and going to jail because you walked in front of a white man which may be a local blue collar law. Or maybe because you wore sweat pants on Sunday.
The jury can find you not guilty of that as well, whilst still being technically against the letter of the law. They could also say fuck you you're Asian, go to jail. I'd rather protect the first one at the sake of the second one just because to lose the first one is fucking frightening.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Anyway, one thing people seem to be forgetting is that we have, right here in this thread's OP, an example of jury nullification (or, rather, the threat thereof) against a bad law. Jury nullification doesn't have a perfect record, but then no element of our justice system does.
That was in preliminary proceedings. I'm not sure if that counts for precedent or not, or if jury selection statements can be on the record. It's certainly not as heavily weighted as appeals court decisions overturning convictions overturning guilty verdicts and civil court results based on juries using parameters other than guilt or innocence under the law.
The jury can also judge the skin color of the defendant and victim and general gassiness. Shouldn't we just inform them that they have the right to deliver verdicts however the fuck they want regardless of reality or the law, as you've already stated your belief that ability is the same as right?
They sure can. This is a relatively minor outlier in the case. And can be used both in good and bad ways, just like skin color was used in both good and bad ways.
I'd rather keep it than revert to law robot.
Then what, exactly, is the rest of the government for? What the fuck is a law if twelve random retards can say it doesn't count, and where the fuck is the principal of equal justice if twelve inbred Alabamians can just say that federal law doesn't apply to white people?
The law delineates the grounds by which a prosecutor may bring proceedings against a suspect. That by itself is huge.
Something doesn't add up. Such as the judge telling them to make drug cases their last priority but the guy was busted with a gun which was also a violation of his parole. They probably could've at least gotten a conviction out of that case.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Something doesn't add up. Such as the judge telling them to make drug cases their last priority but the guy was busted with a gun which was also a violation of his parole. They probably could've at least gotten a conviction out of that case.
As I mentioned earlier, weed is sort of a hot button topic here at the moment.
They probably could've built a better case and brought up multiple charges. Suddenly it doesn't look like preventing some guy with a few buds of MJ for recreation and more like someone violating their parole. I think the prosecution dropped the ball on that big time.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I don't know if the huffington post showed what his conviction was , but it was 20 years 19 suspended, mandatory GED & job after the 1 year is served. He has 8 prior felonies.
I'm not going to voice my opinion on the result, or the jury dropping out or whatever, because the man in question is related to me. But I will say that IMO if the potential jurors had been given all of the facts behind the arrest rather than simply "he was caught with x amount of marijuana", the outcome would have been much different.
Also not recorded in either news article was that the first wave of potential jurors was mostly old people, who were asked if they could sit for a 5+ hour long trial, and they said they could not. Which is when the second wave of jurors was brought in, who said they would not convict for the small amount of marijuana.
I can't guarantee it, but most likely, in this town if you were caught with that small amount of weed, and had no priors, you would have probably been let go, with out even a warning from the police officer. Assuming you weren't being a jackass and smoking up outside a school/church or something. But it is not uncommon to see people smoking up in alleys and outside bars etc.
EWom on
Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
You have it totally fucking backwards. In 1787, jury nullification was a recognized power of the jury. If the writers of the constitution wanted to remove that power, they would have written it so. But they didn't. They did not change the traditional legal understanding of the jury's power in any way.
[citation needed on that 'recognized' thing]
Trial by jury was recognized, too, yet the Framers put in the Constitution. What's up with that redundancy?
Jury nullification is a side effect of the jury's real authority - to decide the facts and not to be subject to punishment or goverment action because of their decision. That is the real bulwark against tyranny, not the ability to say "We think the guy is guilty because the government wouldn't lie about the evidence" or "We vote to acquit because we don't see anything wrong with a white man showing the darkies who's boss."
Being unable to find jurors isn't really "jury nullification", anyway. It's jurors honestly saying that they would not be able to follow their oath and convict the guy if the law and facts say so.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I don't know if the huffington post showed what his conviction was , but it was 20 years 19 suspended, mandatory GED & job after the 1 year is served. He has 8 prior felonies.
I'm not going to voice my opinion on the result, or the jury dropping out or whatever, because the man in question is related to me. But I will say that IMO if the potential jurors had been given all of the facts behind the arrest rather than simply "he was caught with x amount of marijuana", the outcome would have been much different.
Also not recorded in either news article was that the first wave of potential jurors was mostly old people, who were asked if they could sit for a 5+ hour long trial, and they said they could not. Which is when the second wave of jurors was brought in, who said they would not convict for the small amount of marijuana.
I can't guarantee it, but most likely, in this town if you were caught with that small amount of weed, and had no priors, you would have probably been let go, with out even a warning from the police officer. Assuming you weren't being a jackass and smoking up outside a school/church or something. But it is not uncommon to see people smoking up in alleys and outside bars etc.
So this case changes from "twelve brave sticking it to the man" to "twelve retards fuck everything up." Who would have thought that letting twelve random people overrule the democratic process and judiciary would due that?
Jury nullification is a side effect of the jury's real authority - to decide the facts and not to be subject to punishment or goverment action because of their decision. That is the real bulwark against tyranny, not the ability to say "We think the guy is guilty because the government wouldn't lie about the evidence" or "We vote to acquit because we don't see anything wrong with a white man showing the darkies who's boss."
I will note here how hilarious it is that the argument behind the "right" to "stick it to the man" boils down to "might makes right."
1) There is no practical way to remove it without profoundly compromising the jury's role in the justice system. Opening a jury's verdict to investigation by a judge essentially destroys the jury's power as the sole finder of fact in a case. This powers the state immensely at the expense of the accused.
On this I entirely agree with you. There is nothing that can really be done about it without invading the actual role of the jury.
2) Jury nullification prevents jurors from having to make unconscionable choices. It is terrible to expect that a juror in a farcical teenage sexting trial should be forced to convict the poor teenager under an unjust application of the law. Saying that the juror should just suck it up and do his duty while putting his faith in the appellate court is monstrous.
No, what's monstrous is pretending that there's nothing to be done about such laws other than shrugging and hoping some juror gets a bug up his butt about them. We don't live in the Colonies anymore with the Crown imposing law on an unrepresented populace. Why is there a farcical sexting law in the first place? The King didn't decree it. Why is the DA prosecuting this kid? The DA isn't an agent of the Crown, either. People have the right and responsibility to get rid of laws they don't like.
What they shouldn't do is abuse the power of the jury to nullify democratically-decided, constitutional laws because "I feel like it".
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The problem being once someone is arrested for violating said law, there isn't anything they can do if the evidence shows they are guilty, except hope the jury nullifies.
The problem being once someone is arrested for violating said law, there isn't anything they can do if the evidence shows they are guilty, except hope the jury nullifies.
Sorry, what? If somebody is arrested under a law, nobody is allowed to try to get that law overturned? Nobody is allowed to claim the law is unconstitutional? Nobody is allowed to have the DA's office drop the charges?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The problem being once someone is arrested for violating said law, there isn't anything they can do if the evidence shows they are guilty, except hope the jury nullifies.
Or appeal or lobby for retroactive repeal or write the governor or follow one of the twenty other types of legal solutions he has to choose from.
The problem being once someone is arrested for violating said law, there isn't anything they can do if the evidence shows they are guilty, except hope the jury nullifies.
Sorry, what? If somebody is arrested under a law, nobody is allowed to try to get that law overturned? Nobody is allowed to claim the law is unconstitutional? Nobody is allowed to have the DA's office drop the charges?
Once they're arrested and being tried its too late to have the law overturned. Once they're being tried the DA has already decided to charge them. I'm talking bad laws which aren't necessarily unconstitutional, of which we've discussed multiple ones in this thread even on this page.
I find it amusing that you guys offer convincing the DA to not prosecute and writing to the governor for a pardon as solutions. I guess one guy "overrul[ing] the democratic process and judiciary" is fine but 12 isn't. I'm sure the guy won't mind sitting in jail for a few years or decades while the law gets changed. At least he'll have the satisfaction of knowing the process is "working". Perhaps when he does get out he can vote for candidates sympathetic to changing the law. Oh wait, he can't because we permanently disenfranchise felons in this country.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Posts
The idea of Jury nullification is so old that the main cases discussing it are old too!
English cases that happened in England? Maybe not.
English cases that dealt with colonial states and their people? Way more applicable.
It essentially boils down to an appeal to tradition.
Never mind there is no reason for it to be around, it has always been around so it must be around.
They just get to call this common law in legal circles as if that makes it not a fallacy.
The Supreme Court cites pre-Revolutionary English law from time to time, especially when searching for the meaning of the language in the constitution. In the past, when American law was less developed, such citations were even more frequent. For a fairly recent example (1931), Chief Justice Hughes in the case Near v. Minnesota cites Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England to gain some insight into the meaning of the First Amendment and its relationship to prior restraint (here is the text of that ruling). I am sure that someone who has actually studied the law can provide many more examples.
Not necessarily. You'd have a hard time getting a court to accept a ruling from the early 1700s as valid precedent. For good reason.
Citing a court case from 1931 as recent is somewhat odd considering how much of the legal landscape has changed since then.
You are either deeply confused about how our judicial system works, or you are confusing the debate about what is the case from what ought to be the case. Either way, you are confused.
I'm not arguing whether its legal or not, only whether it should be or not. I thought that this was clear.
So... in your mind it's only relevant to cite something from maybe 1980 and onward? That seems silly.
No, it's perfectly unclear. You keep making statements which are demonstrably false, which only serves to muddy things.
Then why are you entertaining this side tangent no whether old English law is relevant to American law? It is a fact that English law -- particularly as it existed prior to the American Revolution -- is the foundation of American law, and that the principles established in the former are the same as those in the latter, except in the cases where they have been specifically altered by statute or constitutional provision. This is why jury nullification absolutely is the law of the land. This is all, of course, entirely separate from the question of whether it should be.
Anyway, I think the right to jury nullification ought to be preserved for two big reasons:
1) There is no practical way to remove it without profoundly compromising the jury's role in the justice system. Opening a jury's verdict to investigation by a judge essentially destroys the jury's power as the sole finder of fact in a case. This powers the state immensely at the expense of the accused.
2) Jury nullification prevents jurors from having to make unconscionable choices. It is terrible to expect that a juror in a farcical teenage sexting trial should be forced to convict the poor teenager under an unjust application of the law. Saying that the juror should just suck it up and do his duty while putting his faith in the appellate court is monstrous.
Boo Fucking Hoo. The supreme court might not like being without its own branch of the armed forces, but that doesn't matter BECAUSE HANDLING THE MILITARY ISN'T IT'S FUCKING JOB. If you don't like the fact that a person you like is guilty, go cry about it in your journal instead of fucking up the justice system.
Telling the jury that it has the right to do whatever it can get away with is basically telling them that they don't have to apply equally and can let a guilty man off because he seems like a nice guy.
For number one, you just showed why jury activism can't be held as precedent, as any alleged case of it is purely speculation based on nothing from the court documents or judicial opinions that comprise a common law system.
I'm curious how preventing injustice fucks up the justice system.
Juries don't have to apply the law equally. A given jury will rule on exactly one case, based on the idiosyncrasies of that one case. Since a jury only decides on one case, the question of whether they are applying the law "equally" is meaningless -- their application of the law in a single case cannot be unequal with itself.
Telling the jury that it can judge the law as well as the facts of a case is merely informing the jury of the full scope of its powers.
I am not sure what you mean here, and I suspect you might be confused as to what jury nullification means. The verdict of one jury in one case is not binding on the proceedings of any other case. The exercise of a jury's nullification powers is always unique to the case in question.
There is this, too. Laws, especially older laws, are not written to be inputs into a law robot. They are written with the powers of judges and juries in mind.
They sure can. This is a relatively minor outlier in the case. And can be used both in good and bad ways, just like skin color was used in both good and bad ways.
I'd rather keep it than revert to law robot.
I'm saying that for something to be precedented in a common law system, it has to at least appear in court documents. Jury nullification has never been directly recorded in court documents, so it is unprecedented.
Then what, exactly, is the rest of the government for? What the fuck is a law if twelve random retards can say it doesn't count, and where the fuck is the principal of equal justice if twelve inbred Alabamians can just say that federal law doesn't apply to white people?
Now, should we instruct juries that they have the right to vote on whatever metric they please?
The law delineates the grounds by which a prosecutor may bring proceedings against a suspect. That by itself is huge.
We should tell juries the truth, which is that they have the ultimate authority to determine guilt. Nothing more or less.
Those 12 inbred Alabamians could be all that stands between you and going to jail because you walked in front of a white man which may be a local blue collar law. Or maybe because you wore sweat pants on Sunday.
The jury can find you not guilty of that as well, whilst still being technically against the letter of the law. They could also say fuck you you're Asian, go to jail. I'd rather protect the first one at the sake of the second one just because to lose the first one is fucking frightening.
Find all the laws you could be guilty of and get jail time! It can even be a family game!
That was in preliminary proceedings. I'm not sure if that counts for precedent or not, or if jury selection statements can be on the record. It's certainly not as heavily weighted as appeals court decisions overturning convictions overturning guilty verdicts and civil court results based on juries using parameters other than guilt or innocence under the law.
You're going to have to give your definition of "guilt," as I was under the impression that it meant a willful violation of the law.
Guilt in the law is fairly circular. You are guilty if the jury says you are.
I know.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_464bdc0a-0b36-11e0-a594-001cc4c03286.html
The Huffington Post skipped over a lot of information, like the fact that the marijuana bust was a violation of his probation.
As I mentioned earlier, weed is sort of a hot button topic here at the moment.
I'm not going to voice my opinion on the result, or the jury dropping out or whatever, because the man in question is related to me. But I will say that IMO if the potential jurors had been given all of the facts behind the arrest rather than simply "he was caught with x amount of marijuana", the outcome would have been much different.
Also not recorded in either news article was that the first wave of potential jurors was mostly old people, who were asked if they could sit for a 5+ hour long trial, and they said they could not. Which is when the second wave of jurors was brought in, who said they would not convict for the small amount of marijuana.
I can't guarantee it, but most likely, in this town if you were caught with that small amount of weed, and had no priors, you would have probably been let go, with out even a warning from the police officer. Assuming you weren't being a jackass and smoking up outside a school/church or something. But it is not uncommon to see people smoking up in alleys and outside bars etc.
[citation needed on that 'recognized' thing]
Trial by jury was recognized, too, yet the Framers put in the Constitution. What's up with that redundancy?
Jury nullification is a side effect of the jury's real authority - to decide the facts and not to be subject to punishment or goverment action because of their decision. That is the real bulwark against tyranny, not the ability to say "We think the guy is guilty because the government wouldn't lie about the evidence" or "We vote to acquit because we don't see anything wrong with a white man showing the darkies who's boss."
Being unable to find jurors isn't really "jury nullification", anyway. It's jurors honestly saying that they would not be able to follow their oath and convict the guy if the law and facts say so.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
So this case changes from "twelve brave sticking it to the man" to "twelve retards fuck everything up." Who would have thought that letting twelve random people overrule the democratic process and judiciary would due that?
I will note here how hilarious it is that the argument behind the "right" to "stick it to the man" boils down to "might makes right."
On this I entirely agree with you. There is nothing that can really be done about it without invading the actual role of the jury.
No, what's monstrous is pretending that there's nothing to be done about such laws other than shrugging and hoping some juror gets a bug up his butt about them. We don't live in the Colonies anymore with the Crown imposing law on an unrepresented populace. Why is there a farcical sexting law in the first place? The King didn't decree it. Why is the DA prosecuting this kid? The DA isn't an agent of the Crown, either. People have the right and responsibility to get rid of laws they don't like.
What they shouldn't do is abuse the power of the jury to nullify democratically-decided, constitutional laws because "I feel like it".
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Sorry, what? If somebody is arrested under a law, nobody is allowed to try to get that law overturned? Nobody is allowed to claim the law is unconstitutional? Nobody is allowed to have the DA's office drop the charges?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Or appeal or lobby for retroactive repeal or write the governor or follow one of the twenty other types of legal solutions he has to choose from.
Once they're arrested and being tried its too late to have the law overturned. Once they're being tried the DA has already decided to charge them. I'm talking bad laws which aren't necessarily unconstitutional, of which we've discussed multiple ones in this thread even on this page.